Listen to the article
Saad Al Abbasi, the Associate Director (Strategy) at VICE Media, shares his take on how consumer behaviour has evolved towards a brand’s “purpose”, the difference between what a consumer wants versus what a brand is trying to do, and most importantly the downfalls of an inauthentic brand purpose devised to drive business rather than the core goal of the purpose.
As consumers become more ethically and socially savvy than ever before and consumer behavior undergoes drastic transformations, tensions around the mantle of “purpose” have become increasingly palpable for brands both global and local.
Speaking from my own experiences, which have largely focused on cultivating online communities, I have always seen a stark gap between what a consumer wants versus what a brand is trying to do. So many brands want to become viral sensations by trying to replicate formulas that are not designed for them, all under the umbrella of having a purpose. On the other hand, your consumer just wants a product that they could trust, but most importantly use. This fetishization of purpose has ironically pushed consumers away rather than attracting them, leaving brands with a style-over-substance legacy that will never contribute to anything more than a mere internet meme.
While we might see that some brands have achieved godlike status in terms of purpose and perception, that does not mean that ALL brands must become spiritual deities with heroic adventures of injecting light into darkness.
Most of this tension stems from the binary construct of profit versus planet that has become the staple of business narratives – where companies seek to enforce win-win scenarios to make profit and sustainability and/or greater good coincide. On the face of it, this could simply mean getting eco-conscious consumers to pay more for sustainable products, for instance, and saving costs by making operations more productive and efficient. But in many cases, a win-win scenario is neither an option nor a desired outcome.
Drawn onto the dictum that brands without purpose have no long-term future, many companies then face tough choices about striking a balance between profit and sustainability in trying to implement a win-win purpose. And that’s how companies fall into the social purpose trap.
Of course, there will be the odd Patagonia and Nike that are able to align their business around a contemporary cause. The founder of Patagonia, for instance, has forfeited ownership of the company and pledged the profits to fight climate change. Even before this, the company in its 2011 Black Friday ad campaign famously implored customers not to buy its best-selling jacket due to its environmental impacts – ironically quadrupling the company’s sales. But such strategies throw up problematic premises for companies seeking a “purpose”: for instance, Patagonia might face increasing pressure to grow its profits to further fund its cause.
In general, brands are not meant to save the world, and brands with an inauthentic “purpose” might not even be able to save their businesses. Because having a purpose is mostly driven by business needs and profitability – and purpose therefore burns money rather than generating it.
Drawn onto the dictum that brands without purpose have no long-term future, many companies then face tough choices about striking a balance between profit and sustainability in trying to implement a win-win purpose. And that’s how companies fall into the social purpose trap.
And what happens when this stated purpose is not even authentic or is tone-deaf?
Pepsi’s Kendall Jenner campaign is a case in point, in which she “suddenly cancels police brutality”. The brand never had any association with civil rights and was called out for it, leading to the campaign being pulled. Similarly, whatever happened to WeWork’s apparently lofty goal of wanting to “Elevate the world’s consciousness”? Instead, the company was forced to pull an IPO, halt expansion plans, and witness its credit rating reduced to junk.
Such meaningless purpose poses two major risks: customers and stakeholders invariably see through an inauthentic premise, and it wastes precious marketing dollars that should have been invested in making the brand more real and relevant.
While such actions reduce brand purpose to an assortment of fancy buzzwords without any value, companies can instead stand out by getting to the heart of culture within their markets to shape brands and make them more relevant, visible and valued. That’s because purpose does not equal credibility and trust – it is commonly mistaken for an emotional connection that brands will never be able to establish with their consumers.
Instead, brands can amplify the things their community loves, giving them a seat at the table and in turn build real credibility that allows them to prosper. By thinking more about what matters to their audience, than what matters to them, and leveraging platforms that deliver the right value to their community, brands can move on from the stranglehold of “purpose” to creating a measurable and truly meaningful impact on people’s lives.
